Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [5]

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Ok here's my take on all this after reading a ton of stuff and trying to work out what seems most likely-

Things to consider first

1. IDS and Osborne are political rivals. They are also two of the leading players on either side of the in/out Euro referendum- IDS for leaving the EU, Osborne for staying in.

2. Whatever you think of him IDS sees himself as a welfare reformer. As such he has been working on his welfare reforms for a number of years.

3. Osbourne doesn't give a shit about reforming welfare, he just wants to cut it, and in this case he had to make the cuts  to keep some thin semblance of economic credibility to his long term economic plan he has staked his reputation on- which requires a surplus by 2020.

4. Cameron has already stated he will not stand for re-election- this means a new leader with Osborne and Boris the two prime contenders. As Boris has also come out to leave the EU he is a natural ally of IDS. Given their history, if Osborne were to be leader IDS would be out of his post anyway. A time to leave either willingly and on his own terms, or be forced out was looming no matter what.

That is at it were the background to events.

Now recent events- this seems to be what has happened in order.

1. The Treasury tell IDS he has to cut the disability money. IDS protests this saying it hits the most vulnerable and he is not just cutting welfare, but trying to reform it by reducing the bill by getting folk like the disabled back into work of some form. The treasury insist on the cuts- IDS goes along with this.
2. Budget Day- Osborne not only announces the cut to disability, but he also cuts taxes to the richest 10% by almost the exact same amount he is saving from the most vulnerable.
3. The whole thing as a result blows up in the governments face and the Treasury brief the press that the disability cuts were the idea of the Works and Pensions Dept- in other-words, IDS did it.
This is what broke the camels back I think- they were trying to get IDS to take the heat for it in order to protect the political career of Osborne.
4. The government announce the reforms have been put on the backburner- not only throwing out the disability cuts, but all the other work IDS has been doing that was apart of the same package. Destroying his entire time so far at the dept in one swoop over cuts he didn't want.

So what really motivated the resignation?- well a combination of factors- I think first and foremost IDS does see himself as a reformer, trying to help the working poor, and sees the Treasury as just interested in cuts to help further the reputation and so political career of Osborne.
Then having the blame put on his dept by the Treasury and having all the reforms thrown out along with the cuts put him over the edge.

The Europe angle being pushed by a lot of the media is a red herring I believe. If you follow the sources its coming from the Government, so is most likely to try to emphasis that angle to distract blame from the cuts and the Treasury, and so Osborne who is no doubt behind these briefings suggesting its about the EU vote really. The EU vote influence is at best tangential- its not about the EU, its about his future career. IDS is backing on a successful Brexit campaign (Brexit is a horrible combo word incidentally ) standing shoulder to shoulder with Boris and for Boris to go on to be leader and so secure IDS his cabinet position. It only involves the EU vote in so much as that's a piece of the strategy along the way, but the real focus and game being played is for his own future.

That's how I am reading it so far anyway.}}}



{{{{{edit add- in what I think is an unprecedented move Cameron has made public his reply letter to IDS's resignation letter- and on line not only stood out to me but made me laugh my head off, its straight out of Yes, Minister territory-

'I am puzzled and disappointed that you have chosen to resign.'

Which in Sir Humphrey civil service speak reads- 'I am implying you have gone mad and not in a good way by resigning.' }}}}

[Mrs Figg]

cant wait for the IDS farewell speech, it could be Howe/Thatcher meltdown time.

[Mrs Figg]

{{Ok here's my take on all this after reading a ton of stuff and trying to work out what seems most likely-

Things to consider first

1. IDS and Osborne are political rivals. They are also two of the leading players on either side of the in/out Euro referendum- IDS for leaving the EU, Osborne for staying in.

agreed about this and I personally think this the real reason why he has thrown his dummy out of the pram. He jumped before he was pushed and if we have Brexit he will no doubt get a cushy job thanks to supporting Boris.

2. Whatever you think of him IDS sees himself as a welfare reformer. As such he has been working on his welfare reforms for a number of years.

IDS is a shark, he will twist and turn until he gets the amount of power he thinks he deserves, I don't believe he wants to reform welfare without political gain.

3. Osbourne doesn't give a shit about reforming welfare, he just wants to cut it, and in this case he had to make the cuts  to keep some thin semblance of economic credibility to his long term economic plan he has staked his reputation on- which requires a surplus by 2020.

shark. just as self satisfied and arrogant but has less balls in the face of opposition.  (((((no offense to real sharks meant))))

4. Cameron has already stated he will not stand for re-election- this means a new leader with Osborne and Boris the two prime contenders. As Boris has also come out to leave the EU he is a natural ally of IDS. Given their history, if Osborne were to be leader IDS would be out of his post anyway. A time to leave either willingly and on his own terms, or be forced out was looming no matter what.

IDS was once party leader and could have been PM, he will hate Osborne, and this is his revenge. Just reading his letter you can see with the Weasel words that this is not about moral indignation on behalf of disabled people but more about knifing Osborne (((no offense to real Weasels)))

That is at it were the background to events.

Now recent events- this seems to be what has happened in order.

1. The Treasury tell IDS he has to cut the disability money. IDS protests this saying it hits the most vulnerable and he is not just cutting welfare, but trying to reform it by reducing the bill by getting folk like the disabled back into work of some form. The treasury insist on the cuts- IDS goes along with this.
2. Budget Day- Osborne not only announces the cut to disability, but he also cuts taxes to the richest 10% by almost the exact same amount he is saving from the most vulnerable.
3. The whole thing as a result blows up in the governments face and the Treasury brief the press that the disability cuts were the idea of the Works and Pensions Dept- in other-words, IDS did it.
This is what broke the camels back I think- they were trying to get IDS to take the heat for it in order to protect the political career of Osborne.
4. The government announce the reforms have been put on the backburner- not only throwing out the disability cuts, but all the other work IDS has been doing that was apart of the same package. Destroying his entire time so far at the dept in one swoop over cuts he didn't want.

So what really motivated the resignation?- well a combination of factors- I think first and foremost IDS does see himself as a reformer, trying to help the working poor, and sees the Treasury as just interested in cuts to help further the reputation and so political career of Osborne.
Then having the blame put on his dept by the Treasury and having all the reforms thrown out along with the cuts put him over the edge.

The Europe angle being pushed by a lot of the media is a red herring I believe. If you follow the sources its coming from the Government, so is most likely to try to emphasis that angle to distract blame from the cuts and the Treasury, and so Osborne who is no doubt behind these briefings suggesting its about the EU vote really. The EU vote influence is at best tangential- its not about the EU, its about his future career. IDS is backing on a successful Brexit campaign (Brexit is a horrible combo word incidentally ) standing shoulder to shoulder with Boris and for Boris to go on to be leader and so secure IDS his cabinet position. It only involves the EU vote in so much as that's a piece of the strategy along the way, but the real focus and game being played is for his own future.

That's how I am reading it so far anyway.}}}



{{{{{edit add- in what I think is an unprecedented move Cameron has made public his reply letter to IDS's resignation letter- and on line not only stood out to me but made me laugh my head off, its straight out of Yes, Minister territory-

'I am puzzled and disappointed that you have chosen to resign.'

Which in Sir Humphrey civil service speak reads- 'I am implying you have gone mad and not in a good way by resigning.' }}}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{{On a completely different topic, but definitely a matter for this thread, this from CNN-}}}

'Scientists have discovered that Homo sapiens -- that's us -- made more babies with archaic humanlike species than initially thought. That sexual history has left a mark on the human genome, possibly influencing our immune systems and metabolism, according to a new study published in the journal of Science.....Scientists analyzed the genetic information of more than 1,500 people from all around the world and determined that ancestors of modern humans interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans...They learned that some Asians, Europeans and even the Melanesians of Papua New Guinea had Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry.....The study confirms early theories that our human ancestors interbred with other hominins after they left Africa more than 50,000 years ago.......And those sexual encounters may have played an important role in bestowing humans with biology that impacts our skin and hair, giving us infection-fighting advantages. "Many of these genes are involved in immunity and likely helped our ancestors fight new pathogens that they were exposed to as they dispersed into new environments," Akey said.....The research discovered that all non-Africans who were analyzed in the study had traces of Neanderthal, and different groups from Europe, Asia and Melanesia had distinctive blends of Neanderthal genes, which likely means humans repeatedly ran into these hominins'- CNN


{{{Ok now we near the appearance of that most dreaded of forum words, Hitler. As he epitomises the belief of genetic superiority of one race over another, and of white over black.
This study would seem to indicate that there are indeed real differences at a fundamental level of DNA, of what makes us, well us, between non-Africans and those who remained in Africa and whose lines have never interbred with those outside that pool. Those people do not have the changes that those who interbreed with other homids do.
How long through isolation and separation of DNA and changes does it take for the divergence to be enough to count as a separate species?
Does this sort of research actually give fuel to right wing groups who think they are superior to Africans?

And on the other side is it possible those who interbred also lost something originally human?}}}}

[Mrs Figg]

Neandertals were very physically strong, their bones were bigger and stronger (I think) which could mean that Northern Europeans would have an advantage in freezing temperatures like an Ice Age, or being attacked by large predators, maybe some diseases too. Maybe Africans had other climatic problems which were best solved by a longer thinner body type built for speed hunting different types of food. this means we are equal but different, it doesn't make one superior over the other, its just survival techniques for different climate and food chains, having more melanin is just an adaptation. it would be saying wolves are superior to dogs just because dogs have interbred more. dunno

[halfwise]

It's kind of ironic to make a claim that europeans might be superior because they're part Neanderthal. Sort of doubt how much traction Arianists might get from this.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Like all science it depends how the results are spun- and right wing groups, at least the European ones, are very good at spinning this sort of thing- they could argue that Europeans took the best of the other hominds- their strengths and added it to their own -the Nazi view was based on Darwin notion of survival of the fittest- note fittest not cleverest, and they could argue that the poor African by never getting these genetic 'advantages' remain 'primitive' humans in comparison- I can see it being quite easily and dangerously spun, sadly}}

[Mrs Figg]

I think people assume Neandertals were less clever than Homo Sapiens, they managed to survive for thousands of years ok. maybe it was they and not humans who did the cave painting. I think we have a Fred Flintstone prejudice against Neandertals, like they are our thick cousins. they might not have been thick, they might have been wiped out by disease rather than not being intelligent enough.

[Mrs Figg]

Beware the IDS of March.

[David H]

The trouble the White racists will have with this data is that, while the percentage of Neanderthal DNA is lower in Africa than in northern Europe, it's higher in East Asia than it is in Europe.

Even if somebody wanted to make the argument that being halfway between African and Asian was somehow superior to either, they'd still have to acknowledge the family ties more than might be comfortable.

[David H]

Also while we're on this topic, could I ask the moderators to please talk to Bungo about age-appropriate relationships? He's been getting a but creepy with all this "interbreeding" talk.

[halfwise]

Clarify: Bungo Banks, not Bungo Baggins.

[David H]

Yes, of course! It's Bungo Banks who keeps appearing in compromising photos.

My apologies to Mayor Baggins and the whole Baggins clan for any unintended confusion.

[David H]

Thinking more about the racist debate, the new data is not so easy for European racists.

African racist: "We're the most pure modern humans!"
Asian racist: "We've got the most powerful Neanderthal hybrid blood in our veins!"
European racist: "We're the most...um...mixed-racial! (?)"

NSFW: more creepy pictures of Bungo Banks:

[halfwise]

Good God, he's nekkid!

Last picture wasn't seeming quite so creepy to me until now.

[Mrs Figg]

he seems to be hiding a turnip in his crotch.

[Eldorion]

The biological definition of species is that two populations have been separated long enough and diverged far enough genetically that they can no longer produce fertile offspring together. This is obviously not the case with any group of modern humans. It's also clear from studies like this and previous ones that Neanderthals were not a separate species, but there's been a movement to classify them as a subspecies of Homo sapiens since at least when I was a kid, because I remember reading about it in textbooks in the early 2000s. To my memory though, most of the research about Neanderthal ancestry had been based in Europe though (isn't red hair supposed to be an originally Neanderthal trait?); interesting to learn that there were apparently other instances of the two groups of hominids mingling during prehistory.

Not sure how it really has anything to do with theories of racial superiority, though. At the time when racial "science" was most popular, Neanderthals were seen as brutish and primitive, so talking about having Neanderthal ancestry (or that of any hominids other than anatomically modern humans) would be the exact opposite of a bragging point. It was in fact a pretty common talking point among European racists that groups they disliked, including (strangely) both Africans and the Irish, were more closely related to apes than the "purer" Germanic/Nordic people. Were you to go back in time and tell a turn of the century racist about this study, I imagine they would be quite upset to learn of it.

With the idea of race as a meaningful biological category long since debunked, though, I don't really see any such implications in our modern scientific understanding of this news.

[halfwise]

But the question is how the science will be spun by groups with racial ideology, which has very little to do with the actual scientific meaning.

[Eldorion]

Who cares? They'll spin anything to fit their worldview. Petty asked if this study would give fuel to racist groups, but anyone who thinks this study proves the racial superiority of a given group was already thinking that way, and anyone who actually thinks about the study is going to realize that it belies such racialist doctrines.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Precisely Halfy- what got me thinking was I was recently reading something said by a German far right group, they were talking about African culture not genetics, but their basic argument was that Africans had remained in an undeveloped state, and had whites not intervened would still be in such, all tribes ect no cities as they were when whites discovered them, and it was their isolation from the rest of the world and lack of change which made the whites superior- the Africans were in their view primitive.
Now if you know African history and culture you will realise what an ignorance basis their whole argument is coming from, and what a distortion of actual evidence it is, so when I read this article it occurred to me it could be used to bolster a similar racist and ignorant argument, only based on the genetics not the culture.

Eldo what you miss is the fairly large group of people clever enough to beware of dna and genetics ect, but not so clever as not to be taken in by an argument that sounds like it has scientific proof backing it, this is how right wing groups recruit, in more subtle meanings than just overt hate. And also the wider point I was making that its never the science thats right or wrong morally, its how people use it and how they convey it to others, in which words and in what context and to what end that decides that}}

[Eldorion]

You're suggesting that racialist groups will try to spin "we have more diverse ancestry than you!" as a positive. Since when has racialism ever been based on the idea that more diversity is a good thing? Those doctrines always come down to the idea that such and such nation or ethnicity are the purest descendants of some ideal group of ancestors. The only way this study could bolster such thinking is if Neanderthals were perceived as the master race, which runs counter to more than a century of ingrained thinking that Neanderthals were stupid, ugly, and primitive.

[halfwise]

Better put than I did much earlier in the discussion.

[azriel]

Can racist ism not also have a toe in religion ? Im wondering if, people of a pale skin automatically see themselves as closer to "God". How humans dream up what any God is meant to look like just hinges on their own agenda. Christ is seen as a white guy, often blue eyed, Brunette hair & beard. IF he was from the warm climes of Bethlehem, Jerusalem, & surrounding countryside he would have a nice coffee colour ? probably brown eyes or, at a push green or hazel ? Now what colour do we associate with Neanderthals ? dirty, grubby, brownish Troll like creatures ? No one can agree. Humans to my mind are no different than animals especially when it comes to terrain. According to the Boffins Earth, was once a giant landmass which was named Pangea. Now I wonder what skin colour all us bodkins were then ? Very handy this argument over colour. Gives bullies, dictators, extremists something to rant about. Im just staggered for how many centuries this argument has gone on for ? Are pale skinned people saying.....your dark so your thick & wont get to see God but, Im white, closer in likeness so I will get eternal life ?? Is that whats underpinning some of this ???

[Pettytyrant101]

You're suggesting that racialist groups will try to spin "we have more diverse ancestry than you!" as a positive.- Eldo

{{Yes. But as they will be spinning it they will not say that obviously- instead what they might say is that Africans who remained in Africa have not gained the adaptation which white Europeans have when they encountered new environments, that white Europeans had to evolve superior DNA promoting greater strength, athleticism, bulk ect whilst the African remained the same primitive form with no external pressures to alter their condition, and without these changes the African did not develop culturally either where white culture flourished and grew- no need for mention of Neanderthals is needed to spin it, but they can point to science and truthfully say white Europeans have changes in their DNA which benefit them against certain conditions which Africans lack, without giving away the source of those bits of DNA or risking a cross diversity argument. A false argument given credence by seemingly being backed up by a scientific study of DNA- its in what you leave out- that's what spinning is.}}}

'those doctrines always come down to the idea that such and such nation or ethnicity are the purest descendants of some ideal group of ancestors.'- Eldo

{{I think that view is 50 years out of date as to how these groups cleverly use genuine scientific evidence to bolster their arguments using concealment, distortion, misinterpretation and reliance on a certain ignorance level among their audience to succeed}}}


{{{Azriel- religion certainly plays its part here, good and bad, just look at the effect for both Christianity has had on Africa since the first Missionaries arrived. But adding religon to the racism debate doesn't half complicate matters! religion always does }}}

[azriel]

cant resist